desire came upon that one in the beginning

8/14/2019 Desire Came upon that One in the Beginning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/desire-came-upon-that-one-in-the-beginning 1/58



MIKOLAJEWSKA Â DESIRE



DesireCame upon that One

in the Beginning …

Creation Hymns of the Rig Veda

Barbara Mikolajewska

The Lintons’ Video Press

New Haven

1999



Copyright © 1997, 1999 by Barbara Mikolajewska

All rights reservedTechnical and editorial advisor: F. E. J. Linton

Published in the United States in 1999 by

The Lintons’ Video Press

36 Everit Street, New Haven, CT06511-2208 USA

e-mail inquiries: TLVPress@ yahoo.com

Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged

Third Printing (2006)Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 0-9659529-1-6



Contents

Acknowledgments 7

Introduction 9

I. Desire Came upon that One

in the Beginning Desire and the Beginning of the World 11

II. He to Whom the Two Opposed Masses

Looked with Trembling in their Hearts

The Creator as Mediator of Desires 25

III. With the Sacrifice the Gods Sacrificed

to the Sacrifice

The Violence at the Beginning of the World 37

IV. What Was the Original Model,

and What Was the Copy?

On Generative Violence 49

Conclusions 55

Appendix: Creation Hymns of the Rig Veda

Creation Hymn (N sad̄ ya) 57

The Unknown God, the Golden Embryo 58

Puru Ñ a-SÔ kta, or the Hymn of Man 60

The Creation of the Sacrifice 62

5



Acknowledgments

All extracts from the Rig Veda appearing inwhat follows come from the Penguin Classicsedition, in the translation of Wendy DonigerO’Flaherty: The Rig Veda: An Anthology,Penguin Books, London, 1981 (ISBN: 0-14-

044402-5), and are reprinted here with thegenerous permission of Professor Doniger.

Similarly, all reference to the writings of RenéGirard focuses on his volumes A Theater of Envy(Oxford University Press, New York, 1991),Things Hidden since the Foundation of theWorld (Stanford University Press, Stanford,1987), and The Scapegoat (The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore, 1989).

Finally, thanks are due to Professors Chandanaand Kisor Chakrabarti, at whose kind invitation apreliminary version of this work was presented tothe Society for Indian Philosophy and Religion atits Conference on Relativism held in Calcutta in

August of 1997.

7



Introduction

It can sometimes be enlightening to examineone worldview from the perspective of another.In exactly such a spirit, but without taking sides,what follows is an attempt at rereading theCreation Hymns of the Rig Veda from the

mimetic perspective espoused by René Girard.Whatever actual enlightenment the reader mayinadvertently find in these pages is, of course,purely coincidental.

Girard’s approach to religious texts is that of a Realist. Religious texts, he claims, makestatements about the reality of social impassesthat arise from the human predicament. Indeed,they develop as direct outgrowths of that reality.

They themselves, in turn, foster another socialreality by providing a religious prescriptionagainst these impasses.

Religious texts ultimately refer to mimesis,which is the ancient Greek word for imitation

and for creation of images, and to the mimeticcrisis. They also have their beginnings inmimesis; and they try to find a remedy against it.Religious narratives are hidden sources of knowledge about the paradoxes of mimesis seen

as the force that creates and destroys the humanuniverse.

9



10 DESIRE

Mimesis, as inherent in the process of Desire

(conflictual mimesis), destroys the universe bythat very process. It implants conflict intohuman interactions. Mimesis creates a newuniverse when it shifts from conflictual toimperative, to the mimesis that provokes

harmonious compliance with normativedemands of society (imperative mimesis). Thusmimesis destroys the universe by the process of desire, and it creates a new universe when itshifts from the conflictual to the imperative: a

successful shifting is the new creation. Thisshifting of mimesis is accomplished by means of what Girard calls victimage: the mimeticproduction of divinity and of sacrifice. Howexactly are these produced? They are mimetic

copies of the founding murder . The concept of the founding murder refers to a hypotheticalviolent event (scapegoating) that brings to anend the destruction characteristic of the mimeticcrisis brought on by the process of desire.

To create the new universe means to shiftfrom conflictual to imperative mimesis. Who,or what, can accomplish such a radical change?Religions say: this is the work of the Creator

and of sacrifice. Girard says: this is done bymimesis. The Creation Hymns of the Rig Vedaprovide both answers at once.



Chapter I

Desire Came upon that One

in the Beginning…

Desire and the Beginning of the World

Desire came upon that one in the beginning;

that was the first seed of mind.

Poets seeking in their heart with wisdomfound the bond of existence in non-existence.

The Rig Veda: Creation Hymn ( N sad ̄ ya), 10.129, 4

11



12 DESIRE

The Creation Hymn N sad ̄ ya of the Rig Veda

connects the creation of the universe with desire.The connection, however, remains for this Hymn

a mystery, as does the creation of the universe

itself. René Girard’s concept of mimetic desire

provides some answers to the questions this

Hymn asks.

1. On violent undifferentiation

The hymn N sad ̄ ya, the 10.129th Hymn of the Rig Veda, makes three somehow surprisingstatements:

1. It connects the creation of the universe withdesire: (4) Desire came upon that one in the

beginning; … .2. It separates creation from the gods and

distinguishes it from the creation of the universe:

(6) Whence is this creation? The gods came

afterwards,

with

the

creation

of

this

universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

(7) Whence this creation has arisen — per-haps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not …

3. It sees the life force as emerging from the

cosmic no-thing-ness (the Void) that was in thebeginning. This Void will stand as the Vediccounterpart of the violent undifferentiation of theGirardian mimetic crisis.

Everything was undifferentiated in thebeginning. There were no oppositions, nodifferences:



IN THE BEGINNING 13

(1) There was neither non-existence nor

existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. …

(2) There was neither death nor immortalitythen. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.

(3) Darkness was hidden by darkness in thebeginning; with no distinguishing sign, allthis was water.

However, there was something in the

beginning. There was some action, somethinggot generated:

(1) What stirred? Where? In whose protection? …

(2) That one breathed, windless, by its ownimpulse. Other than that there was nothingbeyond.

(3) The life force that was covered withemptiness … arose through the power of heat.

Differences were born from that power of heat, which means contemplation of the divine,and renunciation of desires: a kind of asceticismdedicated to the gods. We learn about the power

of heat in detail from the 10.190

th

Hymn of the Rig Veda.

(1) Order and truth were born from heat asit blazed up. From that was born night; fromthat heat was born the billowy ocean.

(2) From the billowy ocean was born the year, that arranges days and nights, rulingover all that blinks its eyes.



14 DESIRE

(3) The Arranger has set in their proper

place the sun and moon, the sky and theearth, the middle realm of space, and finallythe sunlight.

René Girard makes quite similar statementsin his reading of Shakespeare. In Shakespeare’splays a human universe has its end and itsbeginning in this erasing of differences. A newuniverse springs from the resultingundifferentiation; the old one dissolves in it likea river in an ocean. By universe René Girardmeans differential system of culture. The Void,the undifferentiation, is also called the mimeticcrisis. This is the ultimate social impasse, andis suddenly brought to an end by a violent event.

Differences are reborn from contemplation of this violent and seemingly miraculous event.

Girard speaks of violent undifferentiation.The action described in the Hymn N sad ̄ yaseems to be violent as well. That action was

done in someone’s protection. What stirred?Where? In whose protection? In the beginningof the universe, then, there was destruction.

But where does this violent undifferentiationcome from? How does it begin?

2. Desire came upon that one in the beginning…

René Girard would find nothing surprising in

that statement of the ancient Rig Veda. Theviolent undifferentiation, the violent Void, hasits beginning in desire. Some questions arise,fixthisup



IN THE BEGINNING 15

however. Whom did the desire come upon? How

did it begin? In the beginning of what did itcome? Did it come in the beginning of thecreation? If so, what was created?

Girard might advise us to read Shakespeare tofind the answers. Shakespearean characterssuffer from desire. Desire strikes like lightning,and is as contagious as the plague.

3. Desire came upon that one…

Upon whom did desire come? How did itbegin?

How does it ever begin? It does not come

upon one individual but simultaneously uponseveral. Desire is contagious; it spreads toothers. Reading Shakespeare we can observe arepetition of the same desire suddenly strikingclose friends or brothers. How can we explain

this strange property of desire?An individual experiencing desire is called a

subject of desire. However, desire has its sourceneither in him nor in the object of desire, but inthe mimetic relation the one has with the other .

The individual subject is a secondary reality.The more primary reality involves two people

joined together by mimesis (imitation). This isthe primordial human relation. The human egohas its beginning in its reflection in another’s

eyes. The being of the other is a primordialdivine. It seems to have a divine value. Anddesire starts almost more with this transcendentalfixthisup



16 DESIRE

admiration of the other’s being than with the

mimesis triggered thereby.The wish to possess, customarily called desire,

is then also a secondary reality. The subjectiveemotional experience of thirst for an object is

just the visible part of what should be calleddesire. Desire should be understood as aprocess. It has its beginning, its middle, and itsend. The process of desire is put in motion bymimesis. It develops because of mimesis;mimesis also will bring about its end. All this isconflictual mimesis, which implants conflict inhuman interactions, and ultimately ends in theviolent undifferentiation of section 1.

4. Desire … was the first seed of mind .

Reading Shakespeare we can trace desirefrom its beginning to its end. We can also traceits products. The process of desire can be

triggered by mimesis among childhood friendsor brothers. They form a unit, bound by theprimordial mimetic relation. Growing uptogether they imitate each other’s somehowrandom choices. They are encouraged to do soby their teachers, and by their friendship itself.Indeed, imitation is the very heart of friendship.It also binds society together. Society expectsthe development of desires. Girard assumes wedo not know what we want. We have to learnour desires. Friends follow each other’s choices,and create their first shared divine image. Theypersuade each other that an object is desirable by



IN THE BEGINNING 17

producing symbolic representations of its image

as divine. Friends try to influence each othertowards the same choice: they want to triggermimesis. Mimesis is rewarding. The matchingchoice is a confirmation that the object isdesirable.

In Shakespeare’s plays, the dramatic chain of events usually starts with friends whomimetically create the shared divine image of anobject that cannot be possessed by both at once.

For example, Valentine and Proteus, thecharacters from The Two Gentlemen of Verona,mimetically create the image of Silvia as divine.Praising Silvia to Proteus, and inviting him to

join in creating her image as divine, Valentine

manages to provoke his friend to mimesis. Hesuffers from “bawd and cuckold” syndrome,Girard says. This is a widespread illness inShakespeare. Proteus would eventually fall inlove with Silvia. Valentine would become

cuckolded. Proteus imitates Valentine’s choice,as then does Valentine Proteus’s. He inspiresProteus’s choice so as to follow it himself andfall in love with the divine image of Silvia that hecan now see in Proteus’s eyes. The divinity of

this image of the object of desire sets in motionthe process of desire. It transforms Proteus andValentine into the subjects of desire. Theirprevious unity breaks up into three separateelements: the two subjects before the same divine

object of desire, and that object. These threeconstitute the triangle of desire.



18 DESIRE

The object and the subjects of desire acquire

new lives of their own. The divine image sets alltheir minds in motion and starts to fill theirpsyches, motivating their behavior, andemboldening them to create a new external socialreality. Desire is the process of creation and

transformation of both human subjectivity andhuman interaction.

5. Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom

found the bond of existence in non-existence.

What energy is it, that may have put into thenon-existence the bond of existence that thepoets found there? We would say it is the Desire

that came … in the beginning. It does so byimplanting a divine image of an object of desireinto certain subjects of desire. The divine imageof the object of desire puts in motion the processof transformation, which is pushed forward bymimesis. It injects a transforming force into theobject and the subjects of desire. It is imitatedby the object of desire who develops self-love. Itchanges former childhood friends into rivals.They will each continue to imitate the other intheir desire for the object behind the divineimage and in their attempts to overcome eachother as rivals. They become model/obstacle/ rival for each other. Girard calls relations of this

sort mimetic rivalry. Such rivalry has no end.Not even winning can stop it, for that will onlydestroy the object of desire and the rivalsthemselves. The act of winning the object of fixthisup



IN THE BEGINNING 19

desire will eradicate from its divine image its

very divinity, thereby destroying the object of desire itself by removing the implanted modelfor its own self-love. Nor will winning stop therivalry that has by now become the dominatingmodel for interactions. Rivalry might well

become the dominating model in the wholesociety. If it starts at the top of the society it canspread especially easily. It kills all a well-organized society’s other models because theylose relevance to reality. Desire is then a process

of transformation that ends with violentundifferentiation. Desire introduces into humanrelations a rivalry that ultimately becomes thedominating social model, and dissolves allcultural differences.

This violent undifferentiation is brought to anend by the isolated violent event that Girard callsscapegoating. Even this strange conclusion tothe violence has its source in mimesis. Model

images of enemies will proliferate. They will beimprinted in the heart of every individual.Ultimately each will choose to fight against thesame enemy whose model has now successfullyspread throughout the whole society. Killing this

embodiment of the enemy’s image will bring thewar to the end. It will remove the pattern of rivalry from the society. The object perceived byall as a living model of the enemy will be killed.There will be no one else to fight with. The

demon will be removed. Peace and order will benearly at hand.



IN THE BEGINNING 21

force, say the poets of the Hymn, was covered

with emptiness. The Poets too just arise from theemptiness by the power, perhaps, of heat; thebeginning of the universe is a mystery also forthem. They weave the world by focusing theirattention on that mystery.

7. Whence is this creation? The gods came

afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

The Hymn N sad ̄ ya asks about the source of the creation, about the place from which itsprings. Whence is this creation? It seems to bea little confused. It sees the creation asindependent of the gods. The gods came

afterwards, with the creation of this universe.The Poets recognize that desire is the source

of the creation. Desire was the first seed of mind. However, they do not understand how theuniverse was created, what the connection isbetween desire and the creation of the universe.

(6) Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced?Whence is this creation?

Creation has its source in the mimeticproduction of divine images having the power toproduce human subjectivity and humanbehaviors. There is one divine image at thebeginning of the process of desire, and another

at the end. Desire starts with the divine imageof the object of desire that triggers the process of desire. It ends with the divine image of thefixthisup



22 DESIRE

Creators of the universe and the sacrifice that

triggers the creation of the universe.What does really happen at the end of the

process of desire? From the mystery of this endarises the creation of the universe. Without itthat creation would be impossible. The mimeticexplanation of how the violence of the endlessrevenge suddenly comes to an end, and peaceemerges, we have already sketched in section 5.The Hymns, however, preferring a moretranscendental explanation, attribute it to theaction of the gods.

8. Violent undifferentiation and generative

violence

The Hymn N sad ̄ ya meditates on the mysteryof the creation of the new universe. It makesthree strange findings, as section 1 has alreadypointed out. It connects the creation of theuniverse with desire; it separates creation fromthe gods and distinguishes it from the creation of the universe; it sees the life force as emergingfrom the violent undifferentiation. The Hymn

N sad ̄ ya thus refers to two kinds of creation.One results from the process of desire in all itssuccessive stages. The other has its beginning inthe violent conclusion of that process. Each of these kinds of creation is triggered by a shared

divine image and progresses by means of mimesis. For the first, the divine image is of theobject of desire, while for the second it is thedivine image of the Creator and the sacrifice.fixthisup



IN THE BEGINNING 23

The violent undifferentiation is the last stage in

the process of desire, where the first kind of creation has just been destroyed and the other is

just about to begin. These two kinds of creation,triggered by two different divine images, are inopposition to each other; yet, at the same time,

the second springs from the first.

The process of desire fills non-existence withthe bond of existence, but, by providing a modelfor revenge and rivalry, it ends by destroying the

existence it

has

created. A

new

universe

emergesfrom the ruins of the existence desire built. The

violent conclusion of the process of desireintroduces the mechanism of scapegoating , whichboth ultimately brings to ruin the existence

previously built by desire and, by providing newmodels for divine and sacrificial images, enablesa new universe to emerge from those ruins. Thisuniverse is a world quite different from that builtand destroyed by the process of desire. It is a

world of normative order and imperativemimesis. Systems of norms emerge to prescribeproper objects of desire and proper actions forthe various categories of people. These systemsare built on the divine authority of both the

Creator and the sacrifice, who reveal themselvesat the climax of the violent undifferentiation.



Chapter II

He to Whom the

Two Opposed Masses Looked with Trembling in Their Hearts…

The Creator as Mediator of Desires

He to whom the two opposed masses looked

with trembling in their hearts,supported by his help, on whomthe rising sun shines down —

who is the god whom we should worship with theoblation?

The Rig Veda: The Unknown God, The Golden

Embryo, 10.121, 6

25



26 DESIRE

The Hymn The Unknown God, The Golden

Embryo develops an image of the Creator.Precisely in that development one sees the process

Girard calls victimage, by means of which the

shifting to the imperative mimesis is

accomplished. The birth of the Creator then

marks the completion of this shifting to the

imperative mimesis. It is the Creator who has the

power to change chaos into order, to produce the

imperative mimesis. The Hymn The Golden

Embryo explicates the circumstances surrounding

the birth of the Creator, circumstances serving as

clues that behind of the image of the Creator isthe mimetic transformation of the original violent

event into the sacrifice and the divine,

transformation through which that violent event

brings an end to the endless revenge. The Creator

comes into being in the middle of a war betweentwo opposed masses (the endless revenge). His

coming unites them and brings an end to the war.

He is not, however, born alone. The same watery

womb, pregnant with the sacrifice, carries Dak Ñ a.

What directly represents this original event is the

image of Dak Ñ a. The Creator and the sacrifice are

powerful transformed representations thereof.

1. The Creator as Mediator of Desires

The 10.121st Hymn of the Rig Veda, TheUnknown God, The Golden Embryo, describesthe mystery itself of the creation of the universe,

the transcendental experience of seeing anddrawing the image of the Creator. With His birththe creation of the universe is set in motion.



THE TWO OPPOSED MASSES 27

The new universe begins where the process of

desire finds its end. The lord of creation revealshimself to two polarized undifferentiated violentsides; presumably during a war: as the Hymnsays, it is

(6) He to whom the two opposed masseslooked with trembling in their hearts.

He is first seen during a paroxysm of war (Girard’s term), the stage of the endless revengesketched in chapter 1, section 5. He is seen

simultaneously by both of the opposed masses.They share their feelings before him. Terrifiedby his powers and his grace, they look to him

(6) with trembling in their hearts,supported by his help, on whom the rising

sun shines down .

By revealing himself, the lord of creationconsolidates the opposed masses. They areunited by seeing him simultaneously, and by

sharing their feelings in front of him. Herefocuses their shared desire for revenge.Nobody is angry with him; he is too powerful.The opposed masses shift their focus from theirrival to him, the lord of creation. They want to

worship him, to obey him. They want to learn:Who is the god whom we should worship withthe oblation? They recognize him as themediator of their desires:

(10) O Praj pati, lord of progeny, no one

but you embraces all these creatures. Grant us the desires for which we offer youoblation. Let us be lords of riches.



28 DESIRE

They no longer take it upon themselves to fulfill

their desires. They delegate this fulfillment tothe will of the god. An exchange with the god isestablished. Oblation is offered to the god inexchange for his granting them their desires.

This entire hymn thus contains all three crucialelements that Girard stresses in his explanationof mythical exegeses of creation. First, it isduring a paroxysm of war, and to a peoplesomehow already prepared to offer sacrifice, thatthe god first reveals himself. Second, byrevealing himself, the god brings about a radicalchange in their feelings, for the opposed massesbecome united at seeing a new Other — Himself — whom they now adopt as their new mimetic

Other. The whole rivalric mimetic relationdisappears. Third, the people themselves weresomehow ripe for his coming: they felt hispowers; they saw him, as the Hymn The Golden

Embryo says, with trembling in their hearts; they

were ready to worship and to obey him.

2. Once he was born, he was the one lord

of creation.

With the phrase, Once he was born, the Hymnclearly signals that the one lord of creation wasnot just always there, but had his beginning in

something other than himself: he had first to beborn.




What, then, were the circumstances of his

birth? How was he born?He emerged from certain high waters:

(7) When the high waters came, pregnant with the embryo that is everything, bringing

forth fire, he arose from that as the one life’sbreath of the gods.

These high waters, this flooding, can clearlybe read as universal allusions to an all-encompassing undifferentiated chaos — perhaps

even, in view of its bringing forth fire and of theviolent chaos of the two opposed masses, to aGirardian “paroxysm of war.” This violentundifferentiation, which the Hymn N sad ̄ yaseems to tell us already contains within itself the

life force, was the medium from which heemerged — not directly, of course, but indirectly:out of the Golden Embryo.

The Hymn The Golden Embryo does not much

discuss the origin of the Golden Embryo, sayingonly: (1) In the beginning the Golden Embryoarose; and, later, that (7) the high waters were

pregnant with it. Still, we see that the life forcehidden in the violent undifferentiation of the high

waters formed itself into the Golden Embryo, andfrom this, in turn, the one lord of creation wasborn.

Not only the one lord of creation, however,was to be born at this moment, but also, and

equally indirectly, the sacrifice. For the watersdelivered not only the Golden Embryo, fromwhich the one lord of creation was born, but alsofixthisupfixthisup



30 DESIRE

Dak Ñ a, who would be bringing forth the

sacrifice:(8) He who in his greatness looked over

the waters, which were pregnant with Dak Ñ abringing forth the sacrifice, he who was theone god among all the gods …

Thus the sacrifice was not born directly fromthe waters, any more than was the one lord of creation. Rather, the life force hidden in thewaters formed itself not only into the Golden

Embryo, from which the one lord of creationarose, but also into Dak Ñ a, from whom thesacrifice was born. The one lord of creationcould observe the waters, which were pregnant with Dak Ñ a bringing forth the sacrifice.

3. He who by his greatness became the one

king of the world.

What are the powers of the one lord of creation?

This powerful god came bearing peace. Hetransformed the chaos of war into the order of thenew universe. He structured all of space.

(1) He held in place the earth and this sky.

It was

(5) He by whom the awesome sky and theearth were made firm, by whom the dome of

the sky was propped up, and the sun, whomeasured out the middle realm of space …



32 DESIRE

same chaos, the same high waters, from which

the lord of creation emerged, were also bringingforth the mysterious Dak Ñ a, from whom in turnsacrifice would be born.

The same waters that brought forth the GoldenEmbryo were pregnant with Dak Ñ a. Both the onelord of creation and the sacrifice thus have theirbeginning inside the same womb. The sacrifice,however, is not born directly from the waters. Itis born from Dak Ñ a. Only Dak Ñ a emergeddirectly from the water. Likewise the one lordof creation was born from the Golden Embryo.This curious indirection with regard to the birthsof the sacrifice and of the god is extremelysignificant from the Girardian point of view. In

this view, both of them would be transformedrepresentations of the original violent event.Only the image of Dak Ñ a seems to represent thereality of that original event.

There are both mimetic and transcendental

explanations of the beginning of the universe.The transcendental one is a crucial part of thecreation itself. It incorporates into the creationthe concepts of the sacrifice and the Creator.The mimetic one deals with the question mimetic

theory would ask, not about first causes, norabout a historical sequence of events, but thequestion: What was the model for this beginning?The Creator and the sacrifice are the transformeddivine images of something real, Girard would

claim, images that become extremely powerful if implanted into many individuals. The sacrificerepresents the means of transforming violencefixthisup




into peace. The Creator represents a vehicle for

the fulfillment of human desires.What, then, is the reality of which both images

are images? It is the reality of the foundingmurder, Girard would claim. This is one of theThings Hidden since the Foundation of theWorld described by Girard in his book with thattitle. We can infer this reality both from thetransformed religious images and from themimetic logic of the process of desire. In theimages of the Creator and the sacrifice we cansee what today we would call scapegoating,which we try to expose and condemn. Scapegoat is the term for a victim, falsely blamed forbringing chaos, whose death is falsely perceived

as restoring order. This victim might berepresented by sacred images, be they demonicor divine. The Creator is the consecrated imageof such a victim. Sacrifice is the consecratedimage of this scapegoating. The reality of the

founding murder, however, can also be inferredfrom the mimetic logic of the process of desire,according to which the endless cycle of revengespurred by imitation of revenge finally does endwhen the model of revenge is removed from

society. This removal is ultimately achieved bythe polarization of the whole society against anindividual victim, who is perceived as anembodiment of the model enemy. The collectivekilling of this scapegoat brings the peace. This

scapegoat is everyone’s one last rival. As if withone mind, the people are united in their violentaction against this one person. Once he is killed,fixthisup



34 DESIRE

the war stops because there is no rival left. And

this demonized scapegoat then provides a modelfor the images of the Creator and the sacrifice.

Girard assumes that the original violentscapegoating is real. It has its roots in theprocess of desire, of which it is the logicalconclusion. The Creator and the sacrifice are thelingering images of this scapegoating. Theyemerge simultaneously in the individual minds of people unanimously united against the demonic

scapegoat. Far from being purely imaginary,these images are the transformed memory of areal scapegoating. Being shared by so manypeople, they become a crucial part of the creationof the new universe: indeed, they become its very

foundation. They have the power to produce theimperative mimesis. Scapegoating is almostcompletely deconstructed today, but it still existsas a reality of human interaction. It has its rootsin conflictual mimesis and has a mimetic

explanation.The mimetic explanation of scapegoating,

however, is powerless by itself to create a newuniverse. Nor is the original scapegoatingusually directly described by most religious

narratives, so successfully is it transformed intothe ritual of sacrifice, and the Creator. TheHymn of The Golden Embryo, however, with itsidea of Dak Ñ a, provides a quite complex pictureof the original scapegoating. In Dak Ñ a himself

we see evidence both of the scapegoating and of its transformation into sacrifice. Thus, the Hymnof The Golden Embryo would appear to be thefixthisup




exposition of a metaphysics so comprehensive as

to be revealing its own mimetic sources.



Chapter III

With the Sacrifice the Gods

Sacrificed to the Sacrifice

The Violence at the Beginning of the World

With the sacrifice

the gods sacrificed to the sacrifice.

These were the first ritual laws.These very powers reached the dome of skywhere dwell the S

dhyas, the ancient gods.

The Rig Veda: Puru Ñ a-S Ô kta, or The Hymn of Man,

10.90, 16

37



38 DESIRE

The Hymn of Man describes directly what

the Hymn The Golden Embryo only providedcircumstantial evidence for: the original

scapegoating is transformed into the founding

murder for the new universe by providing a model

for the ritual of sacrifice and divinity. This is

precisely what ties the process of desire to the

creation of the new universe. The scapegoatingby which the process of desire is concluded

constitutes the beginning of the new universe.

The Man of this Hymn, like the Dak Ñ a of the

Hymn of The Golden Embryo, serves as

another representation of the reality of scape-goating. In this Hymn one can see the mimetic

transformation of the Man — the scapegoat —

into divinity, and of his dismembering — his

scapegoating — into the ritual of sacrifice, which,

taken together, provide the foundation for the new

universe. What explains the effectiveness of theritual of sacrifice as a mechanism for changing

chaos into order is imperative mimesis.

1. The founding murder and its copy

In the line

(16) With the sacrifice the gods sacrificed to the sacrifice,

Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, the translator of these hymns, must have found the hypnotic three-fold repetition of the vocable “sacrifice” toomesmerizingly puzzling for the Western reader,

for she confirms, “The meaning is that Puru Ñ a(the Man) was both the victim that the godssacrificed and the divinity to whom the sacrificewas dedicated.” Perhaps thinking that stillfixthisup



THE SACRIFICE 39

sounds too strange, she reiterates: “that is, he was

both the subject and the object of the sacrifice.”But exactly this idea, that the subject and theobject — the sacrificial victim, and the divinityto whom the sacrifice is dedicated — should beidentical, lies at the heart of the Girardian

concept of the founding murder. Both victim anddivinity represent the same scapegoating, whichthey transform into the founding murder by theirvery merging. In The Hymn of Man the notion of the founding murder seems to underlie the text

itself. The ritual of sacrifice and the divinity arepresented as emerging from the dismemberedMan. Like Dak

Ñ a, the Man represents thescapegoating from which the sacrifice is born.So clearly and directly does its author,

presumably a believer in the divinity of the ritualof sacrifice, see and describe the Man, thesacrifice, the divinity, and the transformation of the image of the Man, that, almost inadvertently,the Hymn also divulges the mimetic explanationof the origin of these divine images.

In The Hymn of Man the transformation of thescapegoating into the ritual of sacrifice is not yetcompleted. The Hymn of Man cannot free itself

from the ambiguity inherent in the process of making copies. We can observe mimesis atwork. The original victim (the Man) multipliesinto copies. The ritual of the sacrifice is firstcarried out by the gods, who take as their

authority for doing so their understanding of thewishes of the Man himself. Doing what theMan expects to be done is the first model of fixthisupfixthisup



40 DESIRE

imperative mimesis. When the gods carried out

the first ritual of the sacrifice, the receiver of thesacrifice still too closely resembles the sacrificeitself. At the same time he is somewhat different,because he is already divine. The original victim(the model) and the act of sacrifice and the

divinity (the copies) are not well differentiated inthe mind of the poet, nor are they entirely iden-tical. They are at once different and the same.

The language of The Hymn of Man reflects a

memory of the empirical reality, a memory freshenough in the poet’s mind to nourish theambiguity. Certainly contemporary readers of the ancient text cannot share the same ambiguity.We cannot help but distinguish between the

victim and the divinity, between the divinity andthe sacrificial offering. These are separateconstructs in our language, for we have lost allrecollection of the original. For us thetransformation of the scapegoating into the

sacrificial ritual and the divinity has beencompleted.

2. These were the first ritual laws.

The Hymn of Man describes the emerging of the first ritual laws, whose source is in thetransformation of the scapegoating into the ritualof sacrifice. This transformation is accomplishedby the gods, for they are first sacrificers, andthereby set an example of proper action:

(16) The gods sacrificed to the sacrifice.These were the first ritual laws.



THE SACRIFICE 41

In framing the ritual of the sacrifice the gods take

as their authority the example of what the Mandid to himself. They just repeat what the Mandid, and they do so for Him. They provide theperfect model of how to follow the Man’sexample in making offering to Him. Thereafter,

making offering to the Man is taken for granted,and has its rationale in the example set by thegods.

The gods made such sacrifice the obligatoryway of transforming chaos into order. Theyshow exactly what should be done to get thedesired effects. Dismemberment of the Man isthe first recipe for the desired effects. Anycausal connection linking repetition of this action

to the desired effects, however, seems sounpredictable as to require the mediation of thegods or their representatives for its success.They become the legitimate sources of theauthoritative knowledge as to what behavior is

appropriate. They acquire the authority toformulate the relevant laws. This transformationof the original dismembering into the ritual of sacrifice is the beginning of the imperative order,and of the imperative mimesis which demands

imitative repetition of the patterns laid down by arecognized authority.

3. From the sacrifice in which everything

was offered, the melted fat was collected .

The ritual of sacrifice is perceived as thesource of the matter (the melted fat ) from whichfixthisup



42 DESIRE

to shape living beings. The Hymn of Man treats

literally what today would be a metaphor for theshaping of cultural meaning by means of imperative mimesis. The creative power of theremains of the ritual of sacrifice stems from thefact that the sacrifice is a copy of the

dismembering of the Man. The ritual killing of asacrificial victim and the sacrificial offering itself are duplicates of the Man, the original victim.The mysterious authority of the original isprojected on the copies. In the course of the

sacrifice everything was offered (8, 9). Nothing,presumably, was withheld or saved aside. Theonly remains were the melted fat . This wascollected and he — who, we would wonder, isthis he? — made it into those beasts who live inthe air, in the forest, and in villages (8). Who isthis he who shapes living beings? Does he referto the original Man, or to one of his ritualisticcopies? In fact he seems to refer to all of these inone. For the Man shaped everything once, usinghis own sacrificial remains. And he did it again,now using the gods as intermediaries. And, infuture mimetic repetition, he will do so yet again,and again.

The remains of the sacrifice are the matter toproduce, to transform — in short, to shape —human culture. From them are born the sacredlanguage, the sacred music, the prayers:

(9) From that sacrifice in which everything

was offered, the verses and chants were born,the metres were born from it, and from it the

formulas were born.



THE SACRIFICE 43

Common animals spring from the sacrifice:

(10) Horses were born from it, and thoseother animals that have two rows of teeth;cows were born from it, and from it goatsand sheep were born.

Notice, however, that it is only domestic animals,not wild ones, that The Hymn of Man catalogues,and most of these are, in fact, potentiallysacrificial (Girard would maintain that this focussimply confirms that domestication itself arose

from sacrifice, or rather, from its requirement of a steady supply of victims). Even socialstratification receives its shape from the remainsof the sacrificial Man’s body parts:

(11) When they divided the Man, into how

many parts did they apportion him? What dothey call his mouth, his two arms and thighsand feet?

(12) His mouth became the Brahmin; his

arms were made into the Warrior, his thighsthe People, and from his feet the Servantswere born.

Using the Man’s body parts the gods alsoorganized space, or, as the Hymn of Man has it,

set the worlds in order :(13) The moon was born from his mind;

from his eye the sun was born. Indra and Agni came from his mouth, and from his vitalbreath the Wind was born.

(14) From his navel the middle realm of space arose; from his head the sky evolved.From his two feet came the earth, and the

fixthisup



44 DESIRE

quarters of the sky from his ear. Thus they set

the worlds in order .The matter provided by the sacrifice shapes

every aspect of culture. The seemingly strangeview, held by The Hymn of Man, that sacrifice isthe source of human culture, is one Girard treatsquite seriously. Sacrifice really is a machine thattransforms chaos into culture by virtue of itspower to generate imperative mimesis. Thismachine is driven by widespread belief in the

scapegoat and

in

his

miraculous

power

to

changethe inescapable war of endless revenge into a

new order. Girard finds this strange powerinherent in all such generative violence. The

Hymn of Man draws a picture of the transforming

powers of the generative violence of sacrifice. Isit also aware of where these powers come from?

4. The Man, the sacrifice born at the

beginning.

The universe was created because the godsintroduced the ritual of sacrifice and dedicated itto the Man. The generative powers of the ritual

of sacrifice come from the mimetic connectionof that ritual with the Man. It is not the Manhimself, however, but his copies, who have thesecreative powers. The Hymn of Man developstwo independent ways to describe the original

scapegoating that concluded the process of desire. Like Dak Ñ a, the Man represents both thereality of that original scapegoating and itstransformation into the divine ritual of sacrifice,fixthisup



THE SACRIFICE 45

which, in turn, represents the result of this

transformation. Such transformed images havethe power to shape living beings. They holdwithin themselves an ability to organize people’sactions and to mediate their desires.

The language of The Hymn of Mandistinguishes between the Man and the mattershaping the universe. The Man provides thematter so long as he is transformed into thesacrifice and the divine. That matter is describedas the remains of the sacrifice: the melted fat. Itis also named Vir j (or later, Prak Ñ ti). The Manis different from Vir j, though each comes fromthe other:

(5) From him Vir j was born, and from

Vir

j came the Man.We can interpret that last line as follows: theMan gives birth to Vir j because the Man iscopied by the ritual of the sacrifice which is thesource of Vir j. It is Vir j, in turn, from whom

the Man comes, because the sacrifice, whichprovides the divine matter, transforms the Maninto divinity. The transformation of the Man intothe sacrifice must continually be repeated if it isto provide the divine matter. The divinity of thematter, in turn, becomes projected on the Manand on his transformation into the sacrifice. TheMan’s divine power comes from his ability toprovide the model for the sacrifice. The powerof the copy, in turn, depends on maintaining theMan’s ability to provide the model. In this waythe relation between the Man (later calledPuru Ñ a) and the matter (later called Prak Ñ ti) canfixthisup



46 DESIRE

be interpreted as the mimetic relation between

the original scapegoat and its sacrificial copy, thelatter having the character of a machine forproducing the matter that will shape the universe.

The Hymn of Man captures the mimeticrelation between the original violentscapegoating and its transformed copy. Thismimetic relation connects the end of the sort of existence produced by the process of desire withthe beginning of the new universe. Mimesis

changes the original scapegoating into thefounding murder of the new universe. The Manis the original scapegoat, but the Man is also thelater sacrifice. The notions of scapegoat and of sacrifice are similar but not identical. The

sacrifice has generative powers of its own; sohas the Man. However the Man, the originalscapegoat, acquires his powers from histransformation into the sacrifice. He is whatever has been and whatever is to be, all owing to this

transformation. More than just the beginning of the universe, he is also its middle and its end.

5. The Man is yet more than this. All

creatures are a quarter of him; threequarters are what is immortal in heaven.

While praising the Man, The Hymn of Manalso describes the Man’s transformation intodivinity, and the dependence of thistransformation on mankind’s belief in the powerof sacrifice.



THE SACRIFICE 47

(1) The Man has a thousand heads, a

thousand eyes, a thousand feet. He pervaded the earth on all sides and extended beyond it as far as ten fingers.

(2) It is the Man who is all this, whatever has been and whatever is to be. He is theruler of immortality, when he grows beyond everything through food .

(3) Such is his greatness, and the Man is yet more than this. All creatures are a

quarter of him; three quarters are what isimmortal in heaven.

Much the larger part of the Man is what is divine(immortal). The Man is also the ruler of thedivine. This power of the Man, however, is

presented by the Hymn as conditional: He is theruler of immortality, when he grows beyond everything through food . Wendy Doniger, thetranslator, comments that “food” here surelyrefers to the sacrificial offering. Thus the Man

only grows into the ruler of the divine (ruler of immortality) through the offerings that mankind’sbelief in the divinity of sacrifice motivates.

The Hymn of Man points out yet another

aspect of the Man’s greatness. One full quarterof the Man remains on the earth, transformedinto creatures. This quarter, moreover, seems tobe crucial for his transformation into divinity.

(4) With three quarters the Man rose

upwards, and one quarter of him stillremains here. From this he spread out in all

fixthisup



48 DESIRE

directions, into that which eats and that

which does not eat.Later this image of the Man will develop into the

Mah bh rata’s image of KÑ Ñ ¹ a, that avatar of theGod Vi Ñ ¹ u, in the context of the endless war of Kuruk Ñ etra. KÑ Ñ ¹ a there is a man who will dieas a human, but he is also the god who demandssacrifice from other humans. The human part of the dead KÑ Ñ ¹ a will remain on this earth. TheMan’s greatness likewise depends on his death as

a human. The image of this death is representedby the ritual of sacrifice. This is the death of thescapegoat. Once again we see how the seemingparadoxes, in terms of which the poetic languageof this Hymn describes the image of the Man,

may be taken as describing the mimetictransformation of scapegoat and scapegoatinginto divinity and the ritual of sacrifice.



Chapter IV

What Was the Original Model,

and What Was the Copy …?

On Generative Violence

What was the original model,and what was the copy,

and what was the connection between them?What was the butter, … ,what was the invocation, and the chant,when all the gods sacrificed the god?

The Rig Veda: The Creation of the Sacrifice, 10.130, 3

49



50 DESIRE

The sacrifice as woven by the sages is

perceived here as highly mimetic. It harmonizeswith the models provided by the primeval sacrifice

and the Man. The poet’s concern about the mimetic

details signals awareness that the copy should

perfectly match the original to allow the shift to the

imperative mimesis to continue.

1. On making sacrificial copies

The poet,

(6) with the eye that is mind, in thought …sees those who were the first to offer thissacrifice.

And yet he is puzzled; he sees something beyond

them. He sees their action as that of making acopy. The poet, as if with blurred vision,wonders:

(3) What was the original model, and what was the copy, and what was the connectionbetween them?

He seems to be unable to distinguish betweenthe primeval sacrifice (6) and the originalscapegoating it copies. The action of the gods

when they all … sacrificed the god was surelymimetic. The poet, however, wants to know theexact details:

(3) What was the butter, and what theenclosing wood? What was the metre, what

was the invocation, and the chant, when allthe gods sacrificed the god?



THE ORIGINAL MODEL AND THE COPY 51

2. The seven divine sages harmonized with

the original models.

The poet also sees the human sages, thefounding fathers. He perceives their action of sacrifice too as mimetic. However, their action isnot just a simple imitation of the gods.

(7) The seven divine sages harmonized with the original models.

The poet uses the grammatical plural here:

models. He refers both to the model providedwhen all the gods sacrificed the god, and to thesupposed original that was the model for the godsas well. The original is not directly known; it isnot even imaginable. Yet, the founding fathers,the seven sages, harmonized mimetically witheverything they could; with the model providedby the gods, and with the original modelprovided to the gods:

(7) The ritual repetitions harmonized withthe chants and with the metres.

The ritual repetitions harmonized with the modelprovided by the gods. However,

(7) the seven divine sages harmonized withthe original models.

The sages’ vision reached beyond the action of the gods. The founding fathers, the sages, didnot simply imitate the action of the gods. They

harmonized with the model provided by the godsand with the original as well. They participatedin the creation of the sacrifice by harmonizingwith the models.



52 DESIRE

3. Seeing with the eye that is mind.

The poet uses the metaphor of weaving todescribe the sacrifice.

(1) The sacrifice … is spread out with

threads on all sides.It is the Man (see The Hymn of Man) who

(2) has spread it out upon this dome of the sky.

It is also he who

(2) stretches the warp and draws the weft.Without the Man, the weaving of the sacrificewould be impossible. The sacrifice

(1) is woven by these fathers,

(6) the human sages.(1) They sit by the loom that is stretched tight.

The sacrifice is

(1) drawn tight with a hundred and one

divine acts.The sages weave the sacrifice as, with theirmystical vision, they approach (come near) theoriginal model.

(1)The sacrifice … is woven by these

fathers as they come near: “Weave forward,weave backward,” they say as they sit by theloom that is stretched tight .

The Man provides the base for weaving the

fabric, and the divine acts keep the threads tight.The sages weave the sacrifice in cooperation withthe Man. It was the Man who spread the sacrifice



THE ORIGINAL MODEL AND THE COPY 53

out. However, the primeval ritual of the sacrifice

was conducted by the gods. The poet asks,(3) when all the gods sacrificed the god …

what was the original model, and what wasthe copy and what was the connectionbetween them?

The primeval sacrifice conducted by the godswas the model for the sages. The poet can see it

with the eye that is mind. But

(6) the primeval sacrifice was born.

Behind the sacrifice conducted by the gods is theMan. The sages just follow the gods in repeatingthe ritual. They cooperate also with the Man intheir weaving of the sacrifice. The poet sees allof this. He sees those who were the first to offerthe sacrifice. Looking back

(7) along the path of those who went before

gives the wise men the power and the vision toknow what must be done, and how.

The poet differentiates himself from thesubject he tries to describe. Seeing with the eyethat is mind (6), he tries to describe the empiricalreality of the sacrifice — its beginning anddevelopment. He is much closer to that realitythan we are. He still can see what we cannot. Hesees mimetic repetition — Girardian doubling —when he looks at this. He sees a model and itscopy. The Creation of the Sacrifice is almost a

Hymn in praise of (imperative) Mimesis.



Conclusions

In my rereading of the Creation Hymns of the Rig Veda I have been tracing mimesis. I havefound conflictual mimesis in the Hymn N sad ̄ ya.

The Hymn of Man and The Golden Embryo, inturn, refer to the mimetic production of the

divine image of the Creator and the sacrifice.They capture the process of shifting to the

imperative mimesis. The Hymn The Creation of the Sacrifice is concerned with the imperativemimesis of the mimetic repetition of the ritual of

the sacrifice.The Hymn N sad ̄ ya makes a connection

between the creation and desire. Desire is able toput into the non-existence the bond of existence.The process of desire, however, is self-

destructive. It implants a permanent conflict intohuman interaction and ultimately destroys theexistence it has produced. The process of desireis governed by conflictual mimesis. The Hymn

N sad ̄ ya also makes a connection between theVoid that was in the beginning and the life forcethat Void contains. The Void can be understoodas the violent undifferentiation, a Girardian termreferring to the last stage of the process of desire.

This is the stage of endless revenge. The war of revenge is brought to an end by a violent event,which is the killing of a person who seems to befixthisup

55



56 DESIRE

each individual’s personal enemy. This killing is

the original scapegoating. Peace and the creationof the new universe seem to be triggered by thisevent, which provides the model for the mimeticcreation of the divine images of the Creator andof the sacrifice.

The Hymn The Golden Embryo describes theemerging of the Creator in the middle of the warand its violent undifferentiation. The samewomb of violent undifferentiation was carrying

Dak Ñ

a pregnant with the sacrifice.The Hymn of

Man focuses on the mimetic production of thedivine images of the Creator and the sacrifice bymaking copies of the original violent event. TheHymn The Creation of the Sacrifice points out

the importance of the role the process of makingcopies plays in recreating the ritual of sacrifice.



Appendix

Creation Hymns of the Rig Veda(in the Wendy Doniger translation)

10.129 Creation Hymn (N

sad̄

̄

ya)

1. There was neither non-existence nor existence then;

there was neither the realm of space nor the skywhich is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose

protection? Was there water, bottomlessly deep?

2. There was neither death nor immortality then.

There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of

day. That one breathed, windless, by its ownimpulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond.

3. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning;

with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.

The life force that was covered with emptiness,

that one arose though the power of heat.

4. Desire came upon that one in the beginning; that

was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their

heart with wisdom found the bond of existence in

non-existence.

57



APPENDIX 59

4. He who through his power owns these snowy

mountains, and the ocean together with the riverRas , they say; who has the quarters of the sky as

his two arms — who is the god whom we should

worship with the oblation?

5. He by whom the awesome sky and the earth were

made firm, by whom the dome of the sky was

propped up, and the sun, who measured out the

middle realm of space — who is the god whom we

should worship with the oblation?

6. He to whom the two opposed masses looked withtrembling in their hearts, supported by his help, on

whom the rising sun shines down — who is the god

whom we should worship with the oblation?

7. When the high waters came, pregnant with the

embryo that is everything, bringing forth fire, he

arose from that as the one life’s breath of the gods.

Who is the god whom we should worship with the

oblation?

8. He who in his greatness looked over the waters,which were pregnant with Dak Ñ a, bringing forth the

sacrifice, he who was the one god among all the

gods — who is the god whom we should worship

with the oblation?

9. Let him not harm us, he who fathered the earth and

created the sky, whose laws are true, who created

the high, shining waters. Who is the god whom we

should worship with the oblation?

10. O Praj pati, lord of progeny, no one but youembraces all these creatures. Grant us the desires

for which we offer you oblation. Let us be lords of

riches.



60 DESIRE

10.90 PuruÑ

Ñ

a-SÔ

Ô

kta, or The Hymn of Man

1. The Man has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a

thousand feet. He pervaded the earth on all sides

and extended beyond it as far as ten fingers.

2. It is the Man who is all this, whatever has been and

whatever is to be. He is the ruler of immortality,

when he grows beyond everything through food.

3. Such is his greatness, and the Man is yet more thanthis. All creatures are a quarter of him; three

quarters are what is immortal in heaven.

4. With three quarters the Man rose upwards, and one

quarter of him still remains here. From this he

spread out in all directions, into that which eats and

that which does not eat.

5. From him Vir j was born, and from Vir j came the

Man. When he was born, he ranged beyond the

earth behind and before.6. When the gods spread the sacrifice with the Man as

the offering, spring was the clarified butter,

summer the fuel, autumn the oblation.

7. They anointed the Man, the sacrifice born at thebeginning, upon the sacred grass. With him the

gods, S dhyas, and sages sacrificed.

8. From that sacrifice in which everything was offered,

the melted fat was collected, and he made it into

those beasts who live in the air, in the forest, and invillages.



APPENDIX 61

9. From that sacrifice in which everything was offered,

the verses and chants were born, the metres wereborn from it, and from it the formulas were born.

10. Horses were born from it, and those other animals

that have two rows of teeth; cows were born from

it, and from it goats and sheep were born.

11. When they divided the Man, into how many parts

did they apportion him? What do they call his

mouth, his two arms and thighs and feet?

12. His mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were

made into the Warrior, his thighs the People, andfrom his feet the Servants were born.

13. The moon was born from his mind; from his eye

the sun was born. Indra and Agni came from his

mouth, and from his vital breath the Wind wasborn.

14. From his navel the middle realm of space arose;

from his head the sky evolved. From his two feet

came the earth, and the quarters of the sky from his

ear. Thus they set the worlds in order.

15. There were seven enclosing-sticks for him, and

thrice seven fuel-sticks, when the gods, spreading

the sacrifice, bound the Man as the sacrificial beast.

16. With the sacrifice the gods sacrificed to thesacrifice. These were the first ritual laws. These

very powers reached the dome of the sky where

dwell the S dhyas, the ancient gods.



62 DESIRE

10.130 The Creation of the Sacrifice

1. The sacrifice that is spread out with threads on all

sides, drawn tight with a hundred and one divine

acts, is woven by these fathers as they come near:“Weave forward, weave backward,” they say as

they sit by the loom that is stretched tight.

2. The Man stretches the warp and draws the weft; the

Man has spread it out upon this dome of the sky.

These are the pegs, that are fastened in place; they

made the melodies into the shuttles for weaving.

3. What was the original model, and what was the

copy, and what was the connection between them?

What was the butter, and what the enclosing wood?What was the metre, what was the invocation, and

the chant, when all the gods sacrificed the god?

4. The G

yatr ̄

metre was the yoke-mate of Agni;

Savit Ñ joined with the U Ñ ¹ i metre, and with the

Anu Ñ Ó ubh metre was Soma that reverberates withthe chants. The BÑ hat ̄ metre resonated in the voice

of BÑ

haspati.

5. The Vir j metre was the privilege of Mitra and

Varu¹

a; the TriÑ Ó

ubh metre was part of the day of Indra. The Jagat ̄ entered into all the gods. That

was the model for the human sages.

6. That was the model for the human sages, our

fathers, when the primeval sacrifice was born.

With the eye that is mind, in thought I see thosewho were the first to offer this sacrifice.



APPENDIX 63

7. The ritual repetitions harmonized with the chants

and with the metres; the seven divine sagesharmonized with the original models. When the

wise men looked back along the path of those who

went before, they took up the reins like charioteers.

desire came upon that one in the beginning

Documents